Mmh, my comment crudely mentions the most relevant differences between the three. Perhaps I can answer more specific questions you have?

Take into account that in Belgium there is barely any research or documentation about the social actors themselves, esp. the employers organisations (knowledge on unions is slightly better).

For instance, I can generate descriptive results on union density, strike-patterns, etc. in sectors or regions, but I have precious little empirical data or studies to say something about employers organisations...

As a general rule, 90% that VcQ says can safely be ignored as inconsequential attempts to get himself in the spotlights.

However, this tackle on Unizo, at this moment in time, is quite interesting.

It is becoming public knowledge that both VBO and Unizo are getting slightly uneasy with with the strong rise in influence of Voka, through their links with N-VA and the "enterprise-oriented Flemish movement".

VBO has their historical experience in social dialogue and their basis of power in the sectoral employer-federations that span the regions. Unizo is the "logical" counterweight for small enterprises that don't really feel represented by VBO, still has links to the 'christelijke zuil' (cf. Kris Peeters, Marianne Theysen).

Voka on the contrary, originated as more-or-less a lobbying network of pro-Flemish employers, without the links to sectoren across Belgium as VBO has, or the historical links to the middenstand as Unizo, but with a stronger focus on larger corporations and multinationals present in Flanders. And with the shift of bevoegdheden to Flanders, they are treatening the position of VBO, esp. with the N-VA--Voka dynamic being very succesful in getting political results for enterprises and their owners.

Now after the tax-shift announcement, you see for instance sectoral federation Comeos, who should be representated mainly through VBO, complaining that their members are left out (they correctly observe that the RSZ-reduction is mainly to the advantage of the larger companies/multinations, cf. Voka). And while Van Eetvelt was mainly postive about the tax shift, close listeners notice that Unizo-members are not entirely convinced by the current political course. For instance, the constant focus on keeping down wages ("loonhandicap") is more of a concern to the larger, export-oriented Flemish companies (who look at Voka/N-VA), and less for Unizo-members (one could argue that lower wages will even reduce their profit through reduced purchasing power locally).

So why now this tackle from VLD on Unizo? Hard to tell, perhaps it is just VvQ, but it could be one of those public signs of underlying tensions. Perhaps their will be counter-forces, if various actors such as VBO, Boerenbond, Unizo, ACV, ABVV all feel their influence slipping and their members complaining about the political course that is more focussed on larger Flemish-based companies & multinationals...

Which is of course a perfectly legitimate choice, but I hope this finally puts to rest the vacious critique on unions in Nov-Dec. last year, style "the unions choose to forgo negotations and chose confrontation", etc.

It was not true then, and now it is pretty clear that neither the normal non-confrontational channels of consultations, nor mass-mobilisation & measured strikes, nor seven months of patiently waiting for some kind of guesture, will get a better deal.

Some comments, based on ongoing ~8yr experience, on two different contracts/locations (in Leuven):

When everything works, everything is fine. If you have issues, you notice very fast that they are a small company, dependent on their competitors for technical issues (they lease the lines apparently).

Technical support is pretty accessible, but expertise varies from person to person.

If you have an administative issue, they don't seem to have a lot of time to spend on you, esp. not if you are dissatisfied/leaving. Friend ended up going in frustration to their adm. seat, yelling at the windows (they did not bother to open the door).

Webinterface to manage you stuff will make your eyes bleed.

Occasional hick-up (~twice a month), e.g. no connection for 20min, having to do the DHCP release-renew dance occasionally, sometimes drop in downloadspeed.

From my perspective (no nonsense formula, no need for low latency gaming, avg. 50GB download a month, free from for the Belgacom/Telenet duopoly) I was pretty happy, and would recommend them.

"Was" and "would", because I'm rather annoyed since I called them last week. You see, I still have the same formula as ~6yr ago ("Cityconnect"), which has gotten pretty shitty (~6.2Mb/s DL, 100GB cap, etc. for 36eu/month) over the years, compared to competitors and their current offerings, as /u/movingdots describes.

However, according to customer support, there is apparently nothing I can do apart from switching to the only package their still offer ("netline"), which would cost me 99eu in installation costs. Switching to e.g. Proximus would be 2/3 of the installation cost.

I would love to remain outside of the duopoly/with the underdog, but I really don't like this way of dealing with existing customers...

And a large portion [of the 'modale Vlaming'] still seem pretty ready to pull their pants down.

The interesting question is why this is the case, and if this is more pronounced in Flanders/Belgium?

Looking at the last elections in GB, an N-VA style program still has good electoral support, even in parts of the population where it goes clearly and objectively against their own (class) interest. So we need to be careful in thinking that we are exceptional.

That said, i have the impression that there are two structural factors that have, and will continue to, make it more likely that "the modale Vlaming is ready to pull their pants down":

corporatist structure.

enthno-linguistic "crowding-out effect" on socio-economic issues.

W.r.t. the first point, as described above, it seems logical that if you have a corporatist structure + a somewhat redistributive/equalizing welfare state, there will be a larger burden on the middle class (upper class being left alone).

Additionaly, in a corporatist country, there is less (public) attention to socio-economic fractures in the society. Those kind of fractures are 'resolved' by designing structures to contain conflicts, e.g. Belgium as "the results of the institutionalisation of conflict" vs. Scandinavian countries as the result of "the institutionalisation of consensus".

To put in crudely: we in a corporatist country do not really try to resolve the socio-economic fractures in society in the way that Scandinavian countries do, nor do we alllow those fractures to play out in full as in the Anglo-Saxon countries. Instead we create lots of organisations, committees, state structures, etc. were those socio-economic fractures are somehow balanced. Think all those paritaire organen and advisory organs where employers & employee organisations are represented.

W.r.t. the second point, take a look at fig. 2.3 in Kumlin & Svallfors (2007). The graph looks at the degree that there is in a country a relation between (1, x-axis) the degree of class polarisation in demands for redistribution and (2, y-axis) the amount of attention to socio-economic issues (such as redistribution, progressive taxation, etc.) in political party programs.

You see that there is generally a positive relationship: countries where there is a strong polarisation in demands for redistribution/more progressive taxation, also have more attention in political party programs to socio-economic issues. The "direction" is complex: perhaps because there is more polarisation/debate about it, parties/politicians pay more attention to it, or because politicians pay more attention to it, there is more debate/polarisation.

In any case, Belgium is an extreme outlier:

we have the strongest class polarisation in demands for redistribution: employees/working classes really want a more equal income/taxation/wealth, while employers/upper classes really do not want that.

we have very little attention to socio-economic issues in political party programs, because those topics are 'crowded-out' by ethno-linguistic issues ("Flanders vs. Wallonia").

So, to put it very crudely, if you ask people directly whether they support more redistribution/equality, there is both a strong clash and a strong demand 'from below'. However, in the end, this demand does not gets "articulated": politicians do not really talk about it, not spend so much time on it in party programs, it dissapears fast from the media, etc. Mostly because politicians spend more time (distract people with?) issues such as "Flanders vs. Wallonia".

Continental/corporatist approach: decent social program & moderate redistribution, little (tax)pressure on the rich an tax breaks/support for the poor. Results in higher (tax)pressure on the middle class.

So in Belgium (continental/corporatist), middenveld & left(-centrist) parties keep pressure to have redistribution towards the bottom, while the right-wing parties keep the upper class and their wealth/companies out of the picture. Lower middle class pays for it.

So the resulting pattern is not that surprising, what is very interesting to see however, is the speed by which the opposition (demanding a vermogensbelasting) was countered, and the strength of the ideological counter-offensive (just look at spirited defence in the \r\belgium topics on the tax-shift).

In October-December 2014, we had a situation where the largest union mobilization in four decades marched on Brussels, demanding more fair taxation in the face of austerity, unlikely bedfellows such as the Hoge Raad van Financieën and the PVDA recommending a tax shift towards wealth, decent research rapports on the front pages estimating wealth tax returns of 5-8 billion, general outrage on LuxLeaks, Piketty plastered everywhere leading to broad awareness of the gross and rising inequalities, debates on 0% tax for Coucke, etc.

Results half a year later: nothing*. Well, even less than nothing, instead of having to consent to a wealth(income) tax, corporate taxes are reduced even further, social benefits are decreased, and further cuts for the government.

We went in seven months from demands to balance austerity with more fair taxation, to even more austerity with a serving of more tax cuts, this time also aimed more to the bottom.

Well played.

*As an aside, please do not be fooled by the ~260m 'kaaimantax', 28m 'speculatietax' or ~175m fiscal fraud measures. These numbers are laughable. For comparison, a recent ruling in one of the sub-courtcases of the Beaulieu-case resulted in a fine of 64m. Or in the "settlement" with Omega Diamonds, 205m was more or less forgotten. In individual cases already can top your total goal, the priorities are clear.